Disposed

K.M.George v. the Secretary,Municipal Office,Kanhangad

Kerala HC10 Mar 2008WP(C)/5690/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala did not immediately grant the petitioner's prayer for refund and compensation. The delay in stall possession was attributed to a prior court order. The court directed the Municipality to listen to the petitioner's lawyer's notice and pass an order treating it as a representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

No immediate relief granted. Municipality directed to pass an order on the petitioner's representation within three weeks.

K.M.George Vs the Secretary,Municipal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 5690 of 2008(B)

PETITIONER:

K.M.GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, KAKKOOTIL, HABEEB QUARTERS NO.11, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KANHANGAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) NO. 5690 of 2008

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of March , 2008

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner was the successful bidder in an auction conducted by the Municipality pursuant to Ext.P1 in respect of a stall. The petitioner had to deposit a sum of Rs.One Lakh as earnest money deposit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Municipality did not put him in possession of the stall on time and, therefore, he has lost heavily by way of interest on the amount which he had to avail from the financial institutions on huge rate of interest. His prayer in this Writ Petition are;

¶21

i). Direction to the Municipality to release the earnest

¶22

money deposited by him immediately;

¶23

ii). A writ of mandamus commanding the Municipality to

¶24

pay compensation to the petitioner for failure of the Municipality to put the petitioner in possession promptly on the basis of the

¶25

WPC No.5690/2008 2

¶26

bid which was confirmed in his favour.

¶27

I have heard the submissions of Sri.E.D.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Vipindas the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. Sri.Vipindas submits that the failure of the Municipality to put the petitioner in possession of the stall having Door No.8 was only because this court in Ext.P4 judgment had directed that nobody shall be inducted into the stall in question for a period of five weeks from 28.1.2008. According to Sri.Vipindas, five weeks time was given by this court for enabling the petitioners in that case to approach the civil court for establishing their rights to have the stall. The counsel further submits that the petitioners in that case have not so far approached the Civil court. Therefore, the Municipality is ready and willing to induct the petitioner in possession of this stall. The Municipality is also prepared to grant extension of the period proportionately. The Municipality is not bound to pay any compensation to the petitioner since the Municipality became obliged to defer only because of Ext.P4 judgment of this court.

¶28

In response to the above submissions, Sri. E.D.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now the

¶29

WPC No.5690/2008

¶30

¶31

petitioner is not interested since due to the delay which has been occasioned in the matter, the petitioner has already lost heavily and does not want to take risk of sustaining further loss by taking possession of the stall at this belated point of time.

¶32

Considering the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I

¶33

am not inclined to grant either of the reliefs straight away. Ext.P3 lawyer notice submitted by the petitioner is pending with the Municipality. The Municipality is directed to hear the petitioner on the various grounds raised by him in the Writ Petition as well as in Ext.P3 and pass a correct and just order on Ext.P3 treating the same as a representation submitted by the petitioner. Order, as directed above, shall be passed by the Municipality at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of a receiving a copy of this judgment. If the decision of the Municipality pursuant to this direction comes to be against the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to approach a competent civil court for adjudication of the issue.

¶34

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶35

dpk

¶36

WPC No.5690/2008 4

K.M.George v. the Secretary,Municipal Office,Kanhangad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.George v. the Secretary,Municipal Office,Kanhangad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyril Britto Vs Chacko Thomas

Biju Lal Vs the District Collector & Ors.

Ashoken B. Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.Bharathi Airtel Ltd. Vs Jana Jagruthi Vedike

T.Bose Vs T.P.Kuttappan

Mathew Lalson Vs Kerala State Election Commission & Ors.